tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post559272180572910902..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: What do feminists want for women?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2730520392305964772012-04-13T14:42:28.426+10:002012-04-13T14:42:28.426+10:00"Good night, folks. Enjoy the Ummah".
I ..."Good night, folks. Enjoy the Ummah".<br />I do have to point out that if the widespread idea or thinking approaching "all Muslim men/Islamic families are completely strife-free or in completely strife-free relationships" and "feminism doesn't exist in Islam" were true,<br />1. there would be no divorce or temporary marriage in same<br />2. there would be no single Muslim women past say 35 (having been wed before their fertility windows closed)<br /><br />Clearly, that isn't the case.<br />Muslim men I know tell me that the fantasy of feminism being defeated by Islam is just that.P Raynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-87296262341614192812012-04-01T10:58:57.596+10:002012-04-01T10:58:57.596+10:00To understand how absurd Feminism really is, I onl...To understand how absurd Feminism really is, I only need to imagine my friends going in for "Masculinism". They would be laughed off of the planet by their male friends, let alone the women around them.<br /><br />Men are dependent to women in ways that is often incredibly destructive to them, in just the same way that young women who rely on a man to materially support them often are.<br /><br />It's been that way forever. Because it's not part of nature that you get access to everything that either sex enjoys. You have unique advantages and disadvantages, it makes you special.<br /><br />Feminists are miserable misanthropes, just as they appear to be. Misanthropes make an incredible mess of societies and of people's lives when given the opportunity.tahoebrucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16543548835018644065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-7382799629541079722012-03-31T15:57:19.455+11:002012-03-31T15:57:19.455+11:00Why is the whenever there is talk about traditiona...Why is the whenever there is talk about traditional gender roles and gender differences, feminists and liberals switch to their obsession: the "1950's America"? It's hilarious. You would hard-pressed to believe that they only existed in this time period LOL. Liberals don't get that it's not about time (that's why they call themselves "progressives"). It's about conserving the truth and reality. This truth and reality can manifest in different ways throughout the ages.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-84557472515324703582012-03-31T11:40:54.020+11:002012-03-31T11:40:54.020+11:00Simon its never too late for you ;).Simon its never too late for you ;).Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-40476171485649642912012-03-31T09:17:54.062+11:002012-03-31T09:17:54.062+11:00Mark:
"I agree. I have some family background...Mark:<br />"I agree. I have some family background in the upper middle-class. There is a struggle happening to keep the way of life going, but I think things are slipping. There's a fair bit of downward social mobility amongst the young men, and whilst the women are willing to commit to careers they are diffident about family formation. "<br /><br />From what I've seen of my UMC relatives they're doing ok. There is some slippage, but from a high base and not enough to endanger continuity. Eg one uncle had 3 kids, 2 of them stayed UMC, one went 'alternative'/Crusty and may be lost to the UMC. They were raised financially secure enough that the women don't prioritise career over children. Fertility rate in this generation of UMCs may be a bit under 2.0, but probably around 1.8, and there's a lot of demographic momentum as my grandfather had 4 sons and each of his sons had 2 or 3 children.<br /><br />The problem is that right below the UMC, the MMC is a demographic wasteland, eg my parents had 2 kids, their 2 kids have had a total of 1 child - and same in my wife's family. TFR 0.5, I'd guess the national average is more like 1.2-1.4. From what I've seen, things pick up only very slightly in the Lower Middle Class, then improve a bit in the Upper Working Class, with a lot of traditionalist men supporting their wives, though in London fertility still very low, lots of only children even here. And then the regular MWC has been largely destroyed, leaving a fatherless, high-fertility underclass.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-53382556057596521282012-03-31T09:07:39.552+11:002012-03-31T09:07:39.552+11:00"In the days of yore, even poorer women share..."In the days of yore, even poorer women shared out childcare and certain 'big' household tasks, and there was not this bizarre modern notion that mothers exist to entertain individual children all day alone. "<br /><br />I agree with that, and it's a big problem with the "America 1950s" model. Women, even more than men, need to be part of a community to function well.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65855559590835789222012-03-31T08:51:20.580+11:002012-03-31T08:51:20.580+11:00When I see a bunch of traditionalists pooling reso...When I see a bunch of traditionalists pooling resources even in the minor way of all living on the same street in a neighborhood or the same row of apartments in a complex, I'll believe they are living their values. Community starts with a conscious effort towards it. You can't ask women to hop off the careerist mindset and then dump them in isolated individual households with infants and toddlers and few or no interactions with other women, much less other like minded women. <br /><br />In the days of yore, even poorer women shared out childcare and certain 'big' household tasks, and there was not this bizarre modern notion that mothers exist to entertain individual children all day alone. <br /><br />Any time someone brings up the absence of care for traditionally women's spheres in trad discussions, a bunch of dudes usually pop along to say that women nowadays are lazy, because they simply don't see or know about the female traditional-work infrastructures of the past. <br /><br />So when I see trad men appreciating what their wives need to be the most functional and effective trad women, then I'll believe they are living their values.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66311622321819722922012-03-31T08:35:15.241+11:002012-03-31T08:35:15.241+11:00Anon,
I think there are plenty of trads who do li...Anon,<br /><br />I think there are plenty of trads who do live their values when it comes to family. <br /><br />The bigger problem is not living our values when it comes to community. <br /><br />The role that men should really have is not only to be a patriarch within a family - not only to fulfil a provider/protector role as a husband and father within a family - but also to be fulfil a similar role within a community. <br /><br />That was understood in classical times and it's something we'll have to try to revive - a masculine sense of responsibility not only for one's own family but also for a larger community.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22312903783059007672012-03-31T08:18:38.171+11:002012-03-31T08:18:38.171+11:00what are your thoughts on the recent Queensland vi...<i>what are your thoughts on the recent Queensland victory for Campbell Newman?</i><br /><br />It was a big win, but I find it hard to get excited by state Liberals - chances are there'll be more of the same, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I don't know much about Campbell Newman. <br /><br /><i>The status quo, even for the UMC, isn't sustainable for more than another 10-20 years. And then what?</i><br /><br />I agree. I have some family background in the upper middle-class. There is a struggle happening to keep the way of life going, but I think things are slipping. There's a fair bit of downward social mobility amongst the young men, and whilst the women are willing to commit to careers they are diffident about family formation. <br /><br />Simon,<br /><br />I agree with both a) and b).Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2548688129720403982012-03-31T07:45:01.284+11:002012-03-31T07:45:01.284+11:00Traditionalists don't live their values. They...Traditionalists don't live their values. They provide no support for their wives in maintaining or developing the female-specific infrastructure for home economy and child-rearing and female industry that used to be commonplace even for poor women. You can't advocate for hierarchy and a stable order when you live like the moderns with a flattened, atomic, deracinated family unit. <br /><br />The UMC layers of nannies and daycamps and playdates aren't perfect, but they more closely model what women used to have that kept them able to support even poor homes on most or all of one male income.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-6134365578401793622012-03-31T07:38:42.809+11:002012-03-31T07:38:42.809+11:00Brendan:
"My point has always been that while...Brendan:<br />"My point has always been that while traditionalists have interesting ideas, I don't see it as a viable movement -- that is, I do not see it ever "working" going forward. "<br /><br />All the Trads have to do is have kids - something they are rather good at, unlike MRAers, WNs, HBDers et al - and for enough of their kids to stay Trad and have kids. At that point they're doing pretty well.<br /><br />To advance by conversion among the intelligentsia, they should also <br /><br />(a) continue to work to improve their visibility as a political movement discrete from the churches to which they belong<br /><br />(b) Welcome allies like me who may not be able to share their religious views, but can see that they are right on the arguments - what is a life well lived, what will ensure future survival of ethnies - especially (but not exclusively) Western ethnies - etc. <br /><br />I was a bit surprised recently when I commented on Steve Sailer's blog that I must be the only non-religious person to support* Traditionalism, that several commenters chimed in to say that they did, too.<br /><br />*My parents raised me an atheist, and it's too late for me, but I'm not going to do that to my son. Ideally he'll grow up at least as Christian as the average Brit, marry a nice Christian girl in his (and her) early-mid '20s, and have lots of Christian kids to carry things on.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22224152117842985922012-03-31T07:13:54.851+11:002012-03-31T07:13:54.851+11:00The status quo, even for the UMC, isn't sustai...The status quo, even for the UMC, isn't sustainable for more than another 10-20 years. And then what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52107240815173824602012-03-31T05:48:48.594+11:002012-03-31T05:48:48.594+11:00Brendan to me seems like the case of a certain (fo...<i>Brendan to me seems like the case of a certain (former) MRA who criticizes traditional conservatives all of the time (for supposedly being feminists), that he ended up going to the bed with the (real) feminists.</i><br /><br />An interesting comment.<br /><br />My point has always been that while traditionalists have interesting ideas, I don't see it as a viable movement -- that is, I do not see it ever "working" going forward. That's my point of disagreement -- it's tactical, primarily, because I don't see it as being viable, and therefore I see it as sucking up resources that could be used in the short to medium term in better ways (i.e., ways that actually have a better likelihood of success). That's my main disagreement with traditionalists.Brendannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2475799375111512762012-03-31T04:18:51.259+11:002012-03-31T04:18:51.259+11:00Hey Oz, what are your thoughts on the recent Queen...Hey Oz, what are your thoughts on the recent Queensland victory for Campbell Newman?Ollienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-59485819226558305392012-03-30T21:11:58.451+11:002012-03-30T21:11:58.451+11:00Brendan to me seems like the case of a certain (fo...Brendan to me seems like the case of a certain (former) MRA who criticizes traditional conservatives all of the time (for supposedly being feminists), that he ended up going to the bed with the (real) feminists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-6197284763494913942012-03-30T14:47:45.440+11:002012-03-30T14:47:45.440+11:00Brendan,
I don't think its a matter of "...Brendan,<br /><br />I don't think its a matter of "taking one for the team" its a matter of promoting what is valuable. If you promote independence, self sufficiency, total self determination, novelty seeking, and never backing down on personal matters etc, then that is what will be encouraged and acted out in society. People "win" then by going through life single or with tenuous relationships.<br /><br />Also as Mark said if relationships do go ahead under those grounds what gets traded off? Maybe the man censors his political opinions or behavior continually so as not to offend his wife? Maybe they have 1 or no children and not 2 or more? Maybe a commitment to society gets paid off and a pursuit of fun activities, ultimately resulting in political/masculine impotence, becomes embraced? Maybe as people are under greater relationship pressure they become more self serving in other ares of their lives?<br /><br />You "sell" family formation by valuing it. The more you value it the higher it gets raised in people's priorities. Many women think that by "breaking out" of traditional modes and models they are advancing themselves and also perhaps advancing society. That is an underlying assumption that must be tested and questioned. Also if family formation doesn't occur cheap arguments like, "there are too many people in the world anyway so its all for the best", can't be allowed to cut it.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-28048821949772177402012-03-30T14:44:54.724+11:002012-03-30T14:44:54.724+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-77000858365458038932012-03-30T07:52:05.537+11:002012-03-30T07:52:05.537+11:00The ones who don't are generally either too pi...<i>The ones who don't are generally either too picky, wait too long (instead of thinking about marriage in the late 20s, they delay until the late 30s like Kate Bolick did) or are very promiscuous in the 20s and have a layover effect from this.</i><br /><br />I agree that it is these women who are most likely to miss out. But remember, women are giving themselves a very narrow window of opportunity to get things right. And the statistics from the UK show that large numbers are missing out - 43% of university educated women aged 33 to 46 are still childless.<br /><br />Furthermore, the women who do succeed are relying on the social capital of the past. They are relying on men stubbornly waiting it out and holding onto a family man ethos. <br /><br />The reality is that there are many men who experience degrees of demoralisation throughout this entire process. How do they respond? Some delay career commitments. Some marry Asian women. Some become lifelong bachelors. <br /><br />And even those who do make it through will often be left with very small families of only 1 or 2 children. That's not going to keep a culture going.<br /><br />One of the easiest bets I could make is that the current expectation in which upper middle-class women delay family formation until their 30s won't last more than a few decades. It causes too much damage - it's not sustainable.<br /><br />What traditionalists need to do is to talk to those wavering women in their mid-20s who are torn between a commitment to family and a culture which tells them to delay into their 30s.<br /><br />We can be the ones to encourage the family commitment. I've managed to do that successfully twice with women at work.<br /><br />And we need to make it clear to parents that by pushing the career first, delay family to your 30s attidue, that they are increasing the risk to their daughters.<br /><br />They are increasing the risk that their daughters will have to suddenly settle in a panic for a man at the age of 33; that they will experience fertility issues trying to bear children at age 36; and that they will struggle to cope with the transition from long-term self-sufficient career girl to older mother.<br /><br />And what are these parents thinking when it comes to their sons? What kind of a life are they creating for them? Do sons not matter? <br /><br />Again, I just don't think upper middle-class parents are thinking things through. They aren't thinking "What's really viable?" They just think there's a prestige in having a lawyer/doctor/MBA daughter and they assume that the family side of things will just naturally work itself out.<br /><br />Many of these parents are going to be bitterly disappointed when they have to deal with demoralised sons (I have two nephews with career mothers - both have dropped out of their private schools) and daughters who ultimately fail to launch.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21127676301939452632012-03-30T05:15:30.519+11:002012-03-30T05:15:30.519+11:00I very much agree with Brendan on just about every...I very much agree with Brendan on just about everything he said. My only other comment is that what Rosin describes is only true of women in the top 1/4 of IQs. Most women do not have careers -- they have jobs. Rosin doesn't address these -- I doubt they ever enter her mind, but I wonder how this will all play out for them. They will NEVER become financially independent in any real sense.CamelCaseRobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-20787214535653639582012-03-30T03:31:02.420+11:002012-03-30T03:31:02.420+11:00How many of these couples are conservative? I know...<i>How many of these couples are conservative? I know many couples like this but not too many of them are conservative.</i><br /><br />The ones I'm talking about are across the spectrum, politically.<br /><br /><i>I would like to challenge parents to think about how they would respond to this situation. How do you get your daughters to be more decisively oriented to love, marriage and motherhood?<br /><br />I have a daughter so that's an issue I'm going to face later on (she's just a toddler). What I'm certainly not going to do is to endorse the culture which puts careers ahead of family life. Nor am I going to encourage her to set herself up to be independent of men.<br /><br />It is an aspect of a woman's life, I think, to make herself vulnerable to a man, to place herself in his hands. That is part of the essential relationship between men and women; if a woman does not signal this vulnerability to a man, then how is his instinct to commit his strength to her supposed to be triggered?</i><br /><br />I just don't see the strength of the "sell" to the young women themselves, never mind to their parents (which is also an issue). Again, I'm not sure of how the situation is playing itself out in Oz, but in the US it certainly is the case that the parents themselves want their daughters to be set-up career wise *first*, regardless of what happens down the pike in terms of relationships. Very few parents are indifferent about relationships for their daughters, but almost all of them want them to delay this until after careers are set up. It has a strong risk-management element to it, without question, in terms of managing the downside risk. I agree that there is an assumption that the daughters will find men to marry at some point if they "leave it till later" ... but in most cases this is true -- most will find men to marry. The ones who don't are generally either too picky, wait too long (instead of thinking about marriage in the late 20s, they delay until the late 30s like Kate Bolick did) or are very promiscuous in the 20s and have a layover effect from this. The average woman in this scenario picks a man to marry in her later 20s and gets married, and she will, on average, have a few relationships before that. This makes it a pretty hard sell for women and their parents to agree to forego the security of having an independent income stream in order to "take one for the team" in terms of building a better society -- most people don't make personal decisions on that basis, nor do they generally advise their children to do so, either.Brendannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9007572452681528282012-03-30T02:28:08.060+11:002012-03-30T02:28:08.060+11:00„Hanna Rosin is not offering a "you can have ...„Hanna Rosin is not offering a "you can have it all" scenario to women.”<br /><br />Not only is she not offering it, she pretty much admits that it isn’t true. She says, after all, that sexual freedom (i.e. not having children) is ’necessary’ for future success. ’Necessary’ is a strong word. As much as I dislike this dumb article – which unsurprisingly perpetuates the apex fallacy, by the way – I’m glad even feminists are finally admitting this obvious truth. I’m somewhat surprised she isn’t demanding higher spending on daycare centers and maternity leave though.<br /><br />„Women use their temporary college relationships as a "delay tactic," Ms. Armstrong writes, because their immediate priority is setting themselves up for a career.”<br /><br />This explains why white collar women are delaying motherhood. It doesn’t explain why they are delaying LTRs or marriage. To say that young women aren’t pining for those is inaccurate IMO. I think women are very much eager to find attractive alphas who will commit to them and invest in them. What they’re generally very reluctant to do is reciprocate commitment by staying committed in a relationship. <br /><br />@dfordoom<br /><br />Indeed. The situation is fundamentally the same. Women are still dependent on the excess wealth created by men – just not on an individual basis. They make think this is a better scenario, but I’m skeptical. I can understand women who distrust men and refuse to be dependent on them in a relationship. What they tend to forget is that men used to be under tremendous social pressure to invest in women on an individual basis and were essentially not permitted to withdraw such commitment. They also tend to forget that the nanny state may not always be willing or able to pay for their government-supported jobs and welfare checks, to extract child support from their baby daddies. The government is not a bit more trustworthy than the average man. Men may be untrustworthy nowadays, but the reason is that feminism has freed them from their traditional role. Women can only thank themselves. Gender relations are a zero-sum game. When women man up, men man down. When women man down, men man up. Really simple. <br /><br />HöllenhundAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57586018329974644412012-03-29T22:33:30.173+11:002012-03-29T22:33:30.173+11:00even "conservative" parents...want their...<i>even "conservative" parents...want their daughters to establish themselves in careers before marrying. It's risk management.</i><br /><br />Brendan,<br /><br />I agree that even conservative parents push their daughters mostly along careerist lines.<br /><br />But I don't think that's due to risk management. I think the parents just assume that nature, or culture, can be relied upon to match their daughter up with a decent husband.<br /><br />That will increasingly prove to be a false assumption, even for the upper-middle classes.<br /><br />I have two nieces who are gorgeously beautiful, nice and intelligent. They are both lawyers. I don't like the odds of them successfully marrying and having children.<br /><br />Why? Because they don't seem to need men. They are self-sufficient career girls, they spend their time working and then buying nice things to wear, but the culture doesn't really put any pressure on them to turn from mum and dad to form a family of their own. They are just passively waiting, running down their youth, perhaps to salvage something later on. <br /><br />I would like to challenge parents to think about how they would respond to this situation. How do you get your daughters to be more decisively oriented to love, marriage and motherhood?<br /><br />I have a daughter so that's an issue I'm going to face later on (she's just a toddler). What I'm certainly not going to do is to endorse the culture which puts careers ahead of family life. Nor am I going to encourage her to set herself up to be independent of men.<br /><br />It is an aspect of a woman's life, I think, to make herself vulnerable to a man, to place herself in his hands. That is part of the essential relationship between men and women; if a woman does not signal this vulnerability to a man, then how is his instinct to commit his strength to her supposed to be triggered?Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-33794513382352454242012-03-29T22:25:02.283+11:002012-03-29T22:25:02.283+11:00Brendan said,
"Some of the wives choose to b...Brendan said,<br /><br />"Some of the wives choose to become SAHMs when the kids come along, and some don't, but they are all from the same educational and career peer group. And their divorce rates are quite low, too. I know more people who are single and never married than I do who have divorced in this group. Granted this is anecdotal, but it matches what the National Marriage Project study says as well."<br /><br />How many of these couples are conservative? I know many couples like this but not too many of them are conservative.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-24248870764763997122012-03-29T22:24:07.484+11:002012-03-29T22:24:07.484+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-61591365795043899862012-03-29T21:10:42.766+11:002012-03-29T21:10:42.766+11:00According to inclusive fitness theory, eusociality...According to inclusive fitness theory, eusociality may be easier for species like ants to evolve, due to their haplodiploidy, which facilitates the operation of kin selection. Sisters are more related to each other than to their offspring. This mechanism of sex determination gives rise to what W. D. Hamilton first termed "supersisters" who share 75 percent of their genes on average. Sterile workers are more closely related to their supersisters than to any offspring they might have, if they were to breed themselves. From the "selfish gene's" point-of-view, it is advantageous to raise more sisters. Even though workers often do not reproduce, they are potentially passing on more of their genes by caring for sisters than they would by having their own offspring (each of which would only have 50% of their genes). This unusual situation where females may have greater fitness when they help rear siblings rather than producing offspring is often invoked to explain the multiple independent evolutions of eusociality (arising some 11 separate times) within the haplodiploid group Hymenoptera — ants, bees and wasps.[13]Lavazzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15562621987281990910noreply@blogger.com